What's wrong with this moonlanding picture?

Well the title of the thread is What's wrong with this moonlanding picture? The main problem is that NASA gives us multiple versions of reality. Some
versions have lens flare, other versions are dark; in some versions we can see the detail on the face of the bright rock (immediately to the right of
the flag) and in other version the face of the rock is all washed out.

Please tell which version of NASA you believe to be more true to reality.

ever heard of retouching? You're grasping at straws here. Or is NASA somewhere claiming that all these are in fact what moon looks like?
In case you didn't figure it out for yourself, the 2nd one is what the camera sees. 1st one is the retouch which would be closer to what the eye can
see.
You really should've asked NASA first before putting up this drivel.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Please tell which version of NASA you believe to be more true to reality.

I already answered that question, in the above case it's the top one that I think is closest to the true original photo, but none of those is the one
I consider closes to the original.

Now, I will try a third time to see if you answer my question, and I will make clearer.
You said "nobody at NASA will ever claim responsibility because these digital images are falsifications of reality", so my question is "did you ask
NASA about it?"

Now, I will try a third time to see if you answer my question, and I will make clearer.
You said "nobody at NASA will ever claim responsibility because these digital images are falsifications of reality", so my question is "did you ask
NASA about it?"

Why don't you help me formulate a question that will (hopefully) elicit the a response from NASA that will satisfy our thirst for knowledge?

How shall I word this:

Dear NASA, why do you publish different versions of the same image on different servers? Much Love, SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Dear NASA, why do you publish different versions of the same image on different servers? Much Love, SayonaraJupiter

To whom it may concern,

I've been learning about the moon landing for quite sometime and I was wondering if someone could take the time to answer me some curious questions I
have.

I've noticed there are two servers storing images from the Apollo moon landing. Server X and Server Y. Particularly I've been looking at image A and
image B.

1. Can you explain the differences between the images stored on the two servers? I'd like to know which one is the closest to 'original' and
understand the two servers being in place.

2. I was also wondering if it is possible to purchase copies of the negatives of the cameras for further research? I would very much like copies of
the film for my own personal (non-marketing and educational) use if they still exist.

3. I was also wondering where the best place might be to find rare copies of press conferences with the astronauts. I have been unable to locate the
following video clips ...

Can you recommend a particular point of contact within an organization? I would prefer to acquire these tapes for my own educational use and have no
intention of a money making venture with them.

@ OP
I used to be fooled by the flags waving as well. I honestly thought that this was proof for sure the moon landing was hoaxed. All the other stuff I
pretty much dismissed as the imagination reaching, and the moon's reflectivelness, but the flag waving.......THAT was really something. There's no
air, right? How can it wave?

Well, I LOVE the Mythbusters, and they cracked the whole thing wide open. Just look up the Mythbusters Moon Hoax episode. They tested it all, and with
the help of NASA, used their Vacume chamber and set up a surface similar to the moons, and set up a flag. They sucked all the air out, made it a
vacume and holy crap, they flag waves. Not only does it wave, but it actually waves MORE in a vacume if even the slightest thing touches it. It just
keeps waving for a long time. And the reason is.....no air resistance....it just keeps waving.

Trust me, ANYONE who believe us going to the moon was a complete hoax, and actually cares about the subject, OWES it to themselves to watch that whole
episode of Mythbusters. It's the #1 best episode for anyone who comes to ATS, that's for sure.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Why don't you help me formulate a question that will (hopefully) elicit the a response from NASA that will satisfy our thirst for
knowledge?

I usually start by saying that I am a member in an Internet forum where we are discussing some NASA images, and in this case we could add that the
discussion reached a point where there is some confusion about what images are closer to the original, as different NASA servers have different
versions of the photos, then ask if they know why that happens and, if they do not know, if they can point us in the right direction.

This is the answer I got from The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth

Thank you for your message. While our group does not work with the Apollo images - other than those that include the Earth - some of the
multiple versions you find on various sites may be due to individuals or groups contrast-enhancing, sharpening, or otherwise post-processing a given
image in order to increase the information content or enhance a particular feature. It is good practice in these cases to rename the resulting file in
some way as to indicate it has been processed, but that is not always done.

Not a complete answer, but it's a start.

PS: from what I have seen, the difficult part is to find the person to who we should send the email. I haven't looked at the other NASA sites, as
this one was the one I was hoping would be easier to contact. The further away from public relations we get the better odds of getting an answer, at
least judging from my experience. (I never got an answer from a public relations email address)

No you didn't ask. Freaking asking others to do your work where you should have done that before opening your mouth in the foirst place.. than
dodging the simple question multiple times and after that have the freaking nerve too ask someone else to do your frakkiing work?

Jees fraxcking dam.

I should not push reply I should not pless reply I should not press reply.. ah frak it.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Please stop underestimating Richard Nixon. The anti-communists and Nixon loyalists would do anything to beat the Russians.
Anything/

At last!

Thank you for acknowledging (emphatically) that Richard Nixon and his minions would have put men on top of large rockets and sent them to land
on the Moon multiple times, take movies & photographs, transmit video, plant flags, collect samples and return them to Earth for political gain.

It was arguably the least risky thing he did in his presidency. The astronauts were volunteers and the engineers were confident in their work
(they had already flight tested all of the major components and sent three men around the Moon before Nixon took office). He didn't have to argue
for Apollo in his budget requests - The bulk of the money was already spent by the previous Democratic administrations.

In fact, he could reap the political capital of the landings and the good will generated, AND at the same time he could gut NASA's budget to
show everyone how thrifty he was. This is exactly what he did. Hell, even if the missions failed and the astronauts killed he
could have blamed the Democrats for wasting money on a dangerous boondoggle (that he had reluctantly inherited only 6 months before) and killed the
program even quicker (or, if the national mood favored it, he could have "rallied the nation on to eventual victory"

then killed
it).

If the thought of faking any part of the missions had occurred to Nixon or his cronies (for which there is absolutely zero-evidence), they could not
have gotten any support from NASA. The agency was hell-bent-for-leather dead-set on going to the Moon. They were in it for the glory and the
accomplishment and to honor a fallen president and their friends who had died along the way (Charlie, Elliott, Ted, C.C., Gus, Ed, Roger...). To a
man, they would've told the Nixon gang to go to hell. And don't forget that these guys were put out of work just a few years later when when the
program was prematurely terminated. 40 years later, they're still pissed at Nixon for throwing away all the work they had done. They would
not have kept quiet, especially after Tricky-Dick's fall from power.

If Nixon had tried to fake it, he could not have counted on the loyalty & silence of the people he absolutely needed to even try to pull
it off (remember that his own cronies turned on him over a silly, second-rate burglary). There would have been no "plausible deniability"
for a fraud of this magnitude. It would carry an intolerably high risk of getting caught, and he and his men would be disgraced and probably
prosecuted. Doing it for real carries none of these risks, and even if the honest effort failed, there was still political rewards to be claimed
(presidents look oh-so-dignified and sympathetic when they mourn dead astronauts).

Please stop underestimating Richard Nixon. He was a lying, amoral sociopath, but he was no idiot. If he or anyone else in his administration even
pondered the choice between a hoax and an actual moon-landing, it would have been an easy choice to make.

What's the big deal? Photos are often cleaned up so that they look nicer. That usually means removing dust specks and bits of hair, but may also
extend to removal of reflections and lens flares. There is no conspiracy here.

...On page 74-75 Time Magazine published the only full body photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon.

Time Magazine chose to publish the image without lens flare.

...Now. Which one of you NASA cheerleaders will to step forward to defend the NASA lens flare version of reality ??

Are you really saying that a magazine publishing a re-touched photo is some sort of evidence of a moon hoax?

Obviously the photo without the lens flare has been retouched to look better for the magazine. I mean, it is very common to re-touch images for
magazine publication. I'm not sure if this re-touching was done within the NASA Public Relations Office then given to Time Magazine, or if Time
magazine did the retouching themselves, but the reason for doing it would be the same -- and that reason is so that the picture looks better in the
magazine.

So, yes -- the image used in Time Magazine had been re-touched ("tampered with", if you want to say that). However, I don't really understand what
your point is. So what if the image** was retouched?

**Note: The image in the OP is NOT just one image, but is actually a composite panorama of at least two separate images:

As a correction to my own post above, I was wrong that the OP's image and sayronora Jupiter's image ware panoramas. It is actually single image,
but that single image has bee cropped in the example we see in this threaqd. here is the original: AS11-40-5886HR

However, my point still stands -- the image has been edited, which is extremely common.

Editing can be done for many reasons, not all of them nefarious. The version of the image that was cropped, contrast -adjusted, and had the lens
flare removed was probably used for Time Magazine because some at Time magazine thought it looked better than the original.

I mean, it is very common to re-touch images for magazine publication.

Faking a lens flair on a NASA Apollo lunar image is deceitful, whether it was done by NASA or the magazine publisher. Yet NASA publishes this same
image on multiple different servers, with and without lens flair.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.